I cannot stand to see someone's dirty laundry aired on FB, this is another one of those instances. I will select the "hide posts" from this person for awhile if I can figure it out.

I personally think it is rude to date someone else while a divorce is in the works and I think there are exceptions to that thought too. If you leave your spouse for another, file for divorce and then paste pictures of you and new friend all over FB that's rude. If you and your spouse have been separated for months/years and then you file for divorce, start dating someone and post it on FB that's a different situation. I certainly think each situation is unique.

Most of the time we don't know the whole story and it's none of our business anyway but I don't think that means we can't have an opinion either. It's like trying to be on a jury but only hearing half the facts.

The etiquette used to be that you didn't put other people in a difficult spot by making them confront the fact that you are violating your marriage vows. Cultural support of marriage vows is one of the huge forces that makes the institution work (because marriage is not just about the couple; they could have a private commitment for that; marriage is about society's relationship with the couple and vice verse).

If they are divorcing, then they are already breaking their marriage vows: "until death do us part."

If they justify the divorce by saying that the marriage was dead when they started the divorce, then it is already dead and the fact that she is dating is of no consequence.

Most of what everyone has said, has been running through my mind in some way or another!

I will probably hide her notifications on FB for the time being.

It is clear her relationship with her husband is over; and I don't want her to be unhappy in her life. If it's over, fine, move on, and I hope she has found someone to make her happy. I guess I was just questioning the timing of everything. I've heard she plans to introduce her new guy to the kids (ages 13 and 4) or may have done so already this past weekend.

I do flip-flop between thinking "it's her life, let her live it" and "[shock] she's still married!".

The etiquette used to be that you didn't put other people in a difficult spot by making them confront the fact that you are violating your marriage vows. Cultural support of marriage vows is one of the huge forces that makes the institution work (because marriage is not just about the couple; they could have a private commitment for that; marriage is about society's relationship with the couple and vice verse).

If they are divorcing, then they are already breaking their marriage vows: "until death do us part."

If they justify the divorce by saying that the marriage was dead when they started the divorce, then it is already dead and the fact that she is dating is of no consequence.

Except that the marriage is not dead to the rest of society, the rest of the world. And that's what marriage is--a pact you enter into in front of everyone else.

You can have all the private commitments you want. When you marry, it does become other people's business. And it's not polite to other people to put them in the middle of your personal business like that.

That cultural/societal pressure to maintain marriage is what's behind the rudeness.

The etiquette used to be that you didn't put other people in a difficult spot by making them confront the fact that you are violating your marriage vows. Cultural support of marriage vows is one of the huge forces that makes the institution work (because marriage is not just about the couple; they could have a private commitment for that; marriage is about society's relationship with the couple and vice verse).

If they are divorcing, then they are already breaking their marriage vows: "until death do us part."

If they justify the divorce by saying that the marriage was dead when they started the divorce, then it is already dead and the fact that she is dating is of no consequence.

Except that the marriage is not dead to the rest of society, the rest of the world. And that's what marriage is--a pact you enter into in front of everyone else.

You can have all the private commitments you want. When you marry, it does become other people's business. And it's not polite to other people to put them in the middle of your personal business like that.

That cultural/societal pressure to maintain marriage is what's behind the rudeness.

I don't agree that anyone's marriage is other people's business ... are you saying that's because some (certainly not all) people have wedding receptions and ceremonies to which others are invited? If these people in the OP originally got married at City Hall with no witnesses, would it be different?

No, I'm saying that because marriage is public. Almost every marriage requires a witness (even if it's only the officiant). And marriages are registered with the government. If you don't do it the right way, it's not considered valid by the government, and other people aren't legally required to honor it (and maybe not socially--in the past it would have mattered more than it does in 2014).

That's what marriage is--a contract the -rest- of us are required to honor.

If you don't want other people to be invested in your marriage, you can just have whatever private commitment ceremony you decide, and be as committed as you'd like. Lots of people are firmly committed without ever marrying. And lots of people have marriages in which they have no emotional commitment. But that marriage is legally binding. (and trying to make it more emotionally binding, or at least respectful, is what's behind the idea that I won't acknowledge and will in fact condemn your breaking of that agreement, that contract before it is completely dissolved.) (edited to add the underlined)

Marriage is a contract that the rest of the society and culture have a stake in and are affected by. The other stuff is emotional woo-woo (however powerful that woo-woo is, which can be "very").

The etiquette used to be that you didn't put other people in a difficult spot by making them confront the fact that you are violating your marriage vows. Cultural support of marriage vows is one of the huge forces that makes the institution work (because marriage is not just about the couple; they could have a private commitment for that; marriage is about society's relationship with the couple and vice verse).

If they are divorcing, then they are already breaking their marriage vows: "until death do us part."

If they justify the divorce by saying that the marriage was dead when they started the divorce, then it is already dead and the fact that she is dating is of no consequence.

Except that the marriage is not dead to the rest of society, the rest of the world. And that's what marriage is--a pact you enter into in front of everyone else.

You can have all the private commitments you want. When you marry, it does become other people's business. And it's not polite to other people to put them in the middle of your personal business like that.

That cultural/societal pressure to maintain marriage is what's behind the rudeness.

I don't agree that anyone's marriage is other people's business ... are you saying that's because some (certainly not all) people have wedding receptions and ceremonies to which others are invited? If these people in the OP originally got married at City Hall with no witnesses, would it be different?

I am not TootsNYC, but marriage is absolutely other people's business, regardless of the style of wedding. Marriage conveys certain governmental rights that some groups have fought hard to obtain. Marriage is a social unit. I disagree that until the divorce papers are signed one must pretend to be in a happy marriage - I think once divorce proceedings have begun it is polite to keep the messy facts out of the public eye but to begin to separate lives. But I strongly believe that marriage involves more than just the two people in the marriage. There is a public record of marriage and divorce for a reason, actually for many many reasons.

No, I'm saying that because marriage is public. Almost every marriage requires a witness (even if it's only the officiant). And marriages are registered with the government. If you don't do it the right way, it's not considered valid by the government, and other people aren't legally required to honor it (and maybe not socially--in the past it would have mattered more than it does in 2014).

That's what marriage is--a contract the -rest- of us are required to honor.

If you don't want other people to be invested in your marriage, you can just have whatever private commitment ceremony you decide, and be as committed as you'd like. Lots of people are firmly committed without ever marrying. And lots of people have marriages in which they have no emotional commitment. But that marriage is legally binding. (and trying to make it more emotionally binding, or at least respectful, is what's behind the idea that I won't acknowledge and will in fact condemn your breaking of that agreement, that contract)

Marriage is a contract that the rest of the society and culture have a stake in and are affected by. The other stuff is emotional woo-woo (however powerful that woo-woo is, which can be "very").

Your view is interesting, but it does not strike me as the universal truth that you are making it out to be.

No, I'm saying that because marriage is public. Almost every marriage requires a witness (even if it's only the officiant). And marriages are registered with the government. If you don't do it the right way, it's not considered valid by the government, and other people aren't legally required to honor it (and maybe not socially--in the past it would have mattered more than it does in 2014).

That's what marriage is--a contract the -rest- of us are required to honor.

If you don't want other people to be invested in your marriage, you can just have whatever private commitment ceremony you decide, and be as committed as you'd like. Lots of people are firmly committed without ever marrying. And lots of people have marriages in which they have no emotional commitment. But that marriage is legally binding. (and trying to make it more emotionally binding, or at least respectful, is what's behind the idea that I won't acknowledge and will in fact condemn your breaking of that agreement, that contract)

Marriage is a contract that the rest of the society and culture have a stake in and are affected by. The other stuff is emotional woo-woo (however powerful that woo-woo is, which can be "very").

Your view is interesting, but it does not strike me as the universal truth that you are making it out to be.

I am confused which part is not universal, unless you are referring to some government other than the USA?

No, I'm saying that because marriage is public. Almost every marriage requires a witness (even if it's only the officiant). And marriages are registered with the government. If you don't do it the right way, it's not considered valid by the government, and other people aren't legally required to honor it (and maybe not socially--in the past it would have mattered more than it does in 2014).

That's what marriage is--a contract the -rest- of us are required to honor.

If you don't want other people to be invested in your marriage, you can just have whatever private commitment ceremony you decide, and be as committed as you'd like. Lots of people are firmly committed without ever marrying. And lots of people have marriages in which they have no emotional commitment. But that marriage is legally binding. (and trying to make it more emotionally binding, or at least respectful, is what's behind the idea that I won't acknowledge and will in fact condemn your breaking of that agreement, that contract)

Marriage is a contract that the rest of the society and culture have a stake in and are affected by. The other stuff is emotional woo-woo (however powerful that woo-woo is, which can be "very").

Your view is interesting, but it does not strike me as the universal truth that you are making it out to be.

I am confused which part is not universal, unless you are referring to some government other than the USA?

Toots seems to be talking about more than just the government when she says marriage is a contract "the rest of us" have to honor. If she's talking just about the government, then I agree. She seems to be saying much more than that though by saying that "the rest of society and culture" have a stake in and are affected by an individual marriage. The institution, sure; an individual person's marriage, I don't agree.

If someone holds my view--that marriage as an institution is upheld through the upholding of individual marriage contracts, and therefore the rest of us have a stake in insisting that those contracts be treated with respect (i.e., not dating, or at least not making the rest of us deal with your dating, before the contract is nullified)--then that person is going to think that the OP's DD's friend was wrong to force this information in front of everyone on Facebook.

If someone holds a different view--that individual marriage contracts are not the business of anybody else, and that people's emotional situations are the only things that are important, and that they are allowed to make that emotion the business of everyone else--then they will say that it was not bad etiquette to put this info on Facebook in front of everyone.

I'll say one other thing: I think baring your deepest emotions in front of other people is rude to them. People shouldn't really have to deal with your emotions unless they're truly close to you. That's also part of why I think it's not good form to make your dating life really public when it's so messy.

I think this is extremely distasteful, especially because young kids are involved. I also think it's risky, because until they are divorced, they are married (in a legal sense). Of course this can impact proceedings with those kids, as it should.

And I'd call it rude based on simple decency, and the politeness of not providing TMI to people who don't need or want to know such things.

No, I'm saying that because marriage is public. Almost every marriage requires a witness (even if it's only the officiant). And marriages are registered with the government. If you don't do it the right way, it's not considered valid by the government, and other people aren't legally required to honor it (and maybe not socially--in the past it would have mattered more than it does in 2014).

That's what marriage is--a contract the -rest- of us are required to honor.

If you don't want other people to be invested in your marriage, you can just have whatever private commitment ceremony you decide, and be as committed as you'd like. Lots of people are firmly committed without ever marrying. And lots of people have marriages in which they have no emotional commitment. But that marriage is legally binding. (and trying to make it more emotionally binding, or at least respectful, is what's behind the idea that I won't acknowledge and will in fact condemn your breaking of that agreement, that contract before it is completely dissolved.) (edited to add the underlined)

You will find that legal marriage has no stipulation of fidelity between the couple, so you cannot argue that the fact that there is a legal marriage makes her obliged to wait for the divorce. If you argue from the religious point of view, the vows were already broken when decided to divorce.

But the rest of what you say makes a bit more sense than I originally thought. As someone who fought for marriage equality for a long time, I get very nervous about people saying someone else's marriage/relationship affects them. That is precisely what many same-sex marriage opponents were saying and continue to say as a justification for why same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry... that somehow someone else's marriage was their business and would negatively impact them and their marriages. I realize now that is not what you are saying, but my knee-jerk reaction against your words stems from the negative use I have seen of such rhetoric. That's why I personally believe that my soon-to-be marriage is my own business and no one else's, but I understand where you are coming from in thinking otherwise.

If someone holds my view--that marriage as an institution is upheld through the upholding of individual marriage contracts, and therefore the rest of us have a stake in insisting that those contracts be treated with respect (i.e., not dating, or at least not making the rest of us deal with your dating, before the contract is nullified)--then that person is going to think that the OP's DD's friend was wrong to force this information in front of everyone on Facebook.

If someone holds a different view--that individual marriage contracts are not the business of anybody else, and that people's emotional situations are the only things that are important, and that they are allowed to make that emotion the business of everyone else--then they will say that it was not bad etiquette to put this info on Facebook in front of everyone.

I'll say one other thing: I think baring your deepest emotions in front of other people is rude to them. People shouldn't really have to deal with your emotions unless they're truly close to you. That's also part of why I think it's not good form to make your dating life really public when it's so messy.

Sure, let's all strive to maintain the institution of marriage. However, don't force your view of marriage on others. You have no idea what my vows were.